Dear all, dear Mr. Brown:
Mark Brown wrote:
In my mind, a scenario that
violates the GUL would be where person X contributes (checks into source
control), and a GUL licensee accepts the contribution, and that licensee
functionally tests and approves the PAS Functions (thereby confirming that
the contribution performs the PAS Functions described in the GUL), and then
that licensee releases the PAS Functions as a stable / blessed build. That
seems to me to be a "three strikes and you're out" GUL violation.
At one point one should ask what is the invention at stake. How does the
PAS functions relate to the claims in the patent application?
OK, the ietf does not make evaluation of IP claims *validity*, but the
first question from a source code maintainer (your GUL licensee above)
is are we infringing something? Thus, look at the claims. Indeed, it
needs training to read issued patent and patent applications, but that's
the name of the game.
I don't see a logical relation between PAS functions and the patent
application claims (it doesn't mean there isn't one). The ietf IPR
disclosure 833 seems to be trying to force contractual obligations
(assisting the enforcement of protected PAS functions) based on an
assumed infringement threat which would induce some real/moral person to
become a party to the contract (GUL).
I'm always astonished to see ietf discussions about IPR so remote from
simple IPR management basics.
I looked at the specifics of the patent application, and "specification
as filed" in the provisional application. Assuming the 5 independent
claims are valid, I expect the patentholder would have great difficulty
in establishing infringement against a source code maintainer
organization for software maintenance and distribution activities.
The fact that a source code maintainer organization wishes to protect
its user base from IPR uncertainties is perhaps not event a sufficient
motivation for agreeing to the GUL contract.
For the record, I was involved in an IPR discussion in an ietf wg about
a draft (now expired), in the position of the inventor/entrepreneur/ietf
contributor. From the wg feedback, I heard three messages:
1) we need interoperability,
2) don't monetize the DNS (the draft was in the DNS area),
3) an ideologic position against patents.
In this process, I refined my opinion about ietf wg procedures, but
that's a different issue.
Also, the dynamics of a wg being based on voluntary participation,
little seems possible to overcome a wg reluctance to follow the
provisions of section 8 in RFC3979. The IPR disclosure 833 gets broader
attention because it is handled as an ietf-wide issue.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: thierry(_dot_)moreau(_at_)connotech(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf